The contrast between the twin brothers could not have been greater.
Lennie Meres was "exceptionally close" to his mother Olga, supporting and nurturing her until her death in 2015.
![The NSW Supreme Court rejected Lennie Meres' argument that he was entitled to a greater share of his mother's estate ...](/web/20170424054739im_/http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/v/f/q/q/s/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvnu7u.png/1492987260201.jpg)
He lived with his elderly parents in Rockdale for more than 20 years, admitting to the NSW Supreme Court he "was living off my parents' various pensions but I was working hard for the money".
Justice Philip Hallen said Lennie's five-and-a-half-year sentence in 1980 for trying to import 10 kilograms of cannabis into Australia "created what might be regarded as the 'normal disappointment and anguish of a mother at her son's wrongdoing'".
But he said: "There was really no dispute that [Lennie] was a loving, caring and dutiful son to the deceased."
His twin brother Rodney, in contrast, had a strained relationship with his parents.
His father had written a letter in 2004 stating Rodney was "to receive no benefits from my will".
Lennie, 66, told the court his mother had said his brother had "threatened to kill me with a shotgun", which prompted her to take out an apprehended violence order.
Rodney denied the threat and AVO but admitted there had been a court order preventing him from "going anywhere near [the Rockdale property] or having any further dealings with [his] parents".
Olga wrote a letter in March 2004 that referred to an incident in which he had used offensive language and stated: "I do not want Rodney to get a penny from my estate".
Olga's attitude towards Rodney had not softened nine years later when she wrote in her will: "I HAVE NOT made provision for my son RODNEY STANLEY MERES as we have not had a mother/son relationship for approximately 40 years and I DO NOT wish him to benefit under my Will".
Yet shortly before her death in 2015, Olga changed her will to provide for an equal split of her estate – a house valued at $1.2 million – between her twin sons.
Justice Hallen rejected Lennie's argument that he was entitled to a greater share of the estate, at the expense of his twin brother, under family provision laws.
"Whilst the court readily appreciates that [Lennie] may feel hurt and upset that the deceased has chosen to provide one-half of the Rockdale property for [Rodney], in the circumstances of this case, an order for further provision cannot be made," he said.
Lennie may have been hurt because of his twin brother's estrangement from the family.
"I have had no contact with my brother, nor have my parents, to my knowledge, since my father had his major stroke in 1991," he said. "On that occasion he showed up for an hour and visited. He has not to my knowledge visited my mother or father since that time."
Lennie also said his brother had failed to attend the funerals of both parents.
He claimed Rodney had told him, "I had no intention of showing up to mum's funeral but I was thinking of showing up for dad's but when I found out that he left me nothing in the will I was glad that I didn't".
This was disputed by Rodney, who said he only found out about his mother's death after reading the death notices in a local newspaper after the funeral.
Prue Vines, a professor in the University of NSW's Faculty of Law, said Olga's original wishes in the will, dividing her estate evenly between her sons, were significant.
"Lennie did a lot of work supporting his mother but also got the benefit of living rent-free," she said. "And he already had his father's estate which his brother didn't get."
Professor Vines also said Lennie was not in enormous need, but rather wanted to live in his mother's house. "Overall, Lennie was still ahead if one considered what both sons got from both their parents, and he had no special needs which would mean that he should get a greater share."
Esterina Azzi, a lawyer at De Groots wills and estate lawyers, said the court's role was not to "remedy perceived unfairness or hurt feelings". Instead, it was to decide whether proper and adequate provision has been made from Olga's estate in favour of Lennie.
"Although the court was certainly satisfied that the relationship between Lennie and his mother was far closer that the relationship between Rodney and his mother, that did not automatically mean Lennie had 'an entitlement to receive a greater portion of the estate'," she said.
"Family provision proceedings are not about providing a reward for the plaintiff's good conduct or punishment for negative conduct."